Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report

For CDRU # 1282 Case file # 26-TP-27922 .

Material Examiner: Malone fRQl

Remarks:

Case resulted in trial for Kohut and Rourk. Transcript provided.
Case resulted in guilty plea for Pellett.

CRM - 10855

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Examinees) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

Xa

□

o

D

TD, UD, ZT, ZZ, ZC

□

XG

□

□

G

□

□

□

Initials:

CRM - 10856

Was any other materia! reviewed? Xo Yes

□ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letters dated 1-1 2-93 and 1-14-93

and itemized list of evidence submitted showing apparent evidence transfer within FBI Lab

Results of Review

File U: 26A-TP-27922 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q5, Q7-Q 15, Q39-Q42, Q47, Q52-

Q59, Q63-Q73, Q7S, Q77-QS2, Q84-Q91, K11-K14

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note; Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

□ Yes X □ No □ Unable to Determine

2} Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in
the bench notes? □ Yes X □ No □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

□ Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory reportfs)?

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise?

□ Yes

X □ No

o Unable to Determine

□ Yes

XDNo

□ Unable to Determine

XD Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use “Additional Comments 11 Sheet, if needed)

File#:

26A-TP-27922

#1 : The fiber examinations were limited to looking for a transfer of carpet fibers from the victim's Cadillac to

the suspects' Blazer and not vice versa: The examiner testifies(p-2277, #21to p 2279* #11) that-he didn't look -

look for a carpet fiber transfer from the suspects' Blazer to the victim's Cadillac because he wasn't asked to and

(p 2286, #5-18) because there is such a low probability of an indirect transfer like that taking place. If the

probability of that type of transfer is so low, then one must wonder why he searched for carpet fibers from the

Cadillac in the Blazer in the first place. A senior examiner should know to conduct analysts he feds may be

important to the case without being asked, or to at least discuss it with the investigator, even if the probability of

detecting a transfer is low.

#1 : With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted

in an appropriate manner.

Review completed at:

2:45 PM (Time),

1 1/07/2001

(Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour):

5.75 hr.

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 4 pages.

(Signature)

11/07/2001

(Date)

Page

of

Initials:

Additional Comments
(Set forth by question #, if applicable)

File#:

26A-TP-27922

#2; Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil instead of ink. The technicians
fail to document the recovery of hairs and fibers from most of the Q items* Some abbreviations are used with no
explanation of their meaning.

#3: Testimony (p 2214, #5) was given that a small hair fragment found on Q1 was examined. The report makes
no reference to this hair and its examination.

#4: Testimony (p 2214, #5) was given that a small hair fragment found on Q1 was examined. Documentation of
this hair and its examination were not found in the case notes

#4: The examiner testifies he found 2 brown and 1 white Caucasian head hairs in the victim's Cadillac (p 2224 ,
#21). The case notes indicate that Q53 (vacuum sample from Cadillac) had 1 brown and 2 white Caucasian head
hairs, Q85(back of rear seat of Cadillac) had 1 brown and 1 white Caucasian head hairs and Q86 (carpet rear
floor of Cadillac) had 1 brown Caucasian head hair.

#4: Testimony (p 2227, #19) was "it was impossible to do any type of hair and fiber exam on the shirt".... "it was

too badly charred". The examination notes show that hairs were recovered from Q39 (victim's charred shirt) and

were examined. The hairs were identified (assuming the examiner's notes are interpreted correctly) as 1 brown

limb hair of Caucasian origin that is not suitable for comparison and 1 animal hair.

#4: The examiner testifies (p 2236, #1) that the carpet in the suspects 1 and victim's vehicles are very similar,

■

however, that is not documented in his notes.

K

w

r

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report

For CDRU # 1282 Case file it 26-TP-27922 .

Material Examiner: Lasswell (TD1

Remarks:

Case resulted in trial for Kohut and Rourk. Transcript provided.
Case resulted in guilty plea for Pellett.

i

CRM - 10857

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by:

Area(s) of Expertise:

Review commenced at

lucted by:

{Xcc&Je~r(li

H.

t lA/fr /fyss

M^t-/ l/X/S

cZ,& (Time) , f -C?! (Date) -

Examinees) & Symbols

soje

.eviewed Not Reviewed

Reviewed Not Reviewed

Trial testimony transcrip t(s) of:

Testimony Date(s):
Laboratory Reports):

Materials Reviewed

TD

Pages:

3oU3ox$ S’ RQTd V£>

Laboratory Number 3 O

6/"/93

Laboratory Number

Date:

Laboratory Number

Examiner Bench Notes of:

Laboratory Number

Laboratory Number
Laboratory Number:

S^S

Date:

Tb

3o//3 o 2.8 S' ROTO VO

Page

of

Initials:

CRM - 1 0858

Was any other material reviewed? Yes

□ No

If yes* please identify and/or describe the materia]: fcc G-c^/ms /jos-hnj/n/t/it

j&r/hjoichs

Results of Review

Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q2 &4-J Qf.fl7 ; 08 ~)

L

+f.

Q 9 a 9 b.

Q AJL.Qga.

/ J

of Laboratory Report(s)

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No* or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1)

2 )

Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods,
protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

^^Yes □ No □ Unable to Determine

Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in the
bench notes? J^Yes □ No o Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony;

Note; Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

□ Transcript not available.

3)

*

Testimony consistent with the laboratory reports)?

"XYes

ONo

□ Unable to Determine

4)

Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

X Ycs .

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

5)

Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise?

Q No

□ Unable to Determine

Initials

J

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use ** Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

l

Review completed at: 3 ,ao (Time) , ^ / <23- / oJ_ (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): _ -2. At-s

1 hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are
fully documented on this report consisting of a total of ^ ; pages.

(Si;

-4J

(Date) '

Page

3 of 3

Initials